Let`s Not Return To The Draft

June 21, 1985|By Benjamin Zycher, an economist in Canoga Park, Calif. During 1981-83 he was a senior staff economist at the Council of Economic Advisers.

It was inevitable: The urgent need for federal spending cuts has renewed support for reinstitution of conscription to fill the ranks of the armed forces. The projected decrease in the number of draft-age males has added impetus to these proposals, and Senators Ernest Hollings and Steve Symms have introduced legislation to bring back the draft.

Proponents of conscription contend it would reduce the cost of national defense; increase the degree to which the military is ``representative`` of society; allow individuals to fulfill their ``civic duty``; and demonstrate to the Europeans and others the seriousness of our foreign policy commitments. Each of these arguments is incorrect.

Cost. This means ``most valuable foregone alternative activity,`` not

``outlays in the federal budget.`` The true economic cost of a conscripted soldier is not the low salary paid by the government, but the economic value of the soldier`s foregone productivity in his best alternative activity in civilian life. Even in principle, therefore, a conscripted force can never be cheaper than a volunteer one because society cannot avoid this ``opportunity cost`` of conscripted manpower. Like inflation, in short, conscription is a way to transfer resources (labor) to the government without an explicit tax increase. Politically, it is a way to shift part of the tax burden from the majority onto 18-year-old males.

Moreover, the military establishment under a volunteer system has incentives to use manpower resources more efficiently. When labor is cheap, it is used cheaply; when men were drafted, they spent time picking up cigarette butts. The volunteer system provides incentives to use manpower in ways reflecting its true cost, that is, in ways enhancing the national security.

Representativeness. Advocates of conscription argue that the military is disproportionately black, and that therefore the national defense burden is being borne disproportionately. This is a curious argument. Blacks bear a

``disproportionate`` portion of the defense burden only in the sense that they have judged--voluntarily--the benefits of military service to exceed its risks and burdens. Conscription couldn`t make black military-age men better off, since it would discourage some who otherwise would volunteer and coerce into service others who would not.

In a free and pluralistic society, there is no such thing as a

``representative`` institution, public or private, because individuals from different population groups tend to gravitate toward different spheres of life disproportionately. Many conservatives argue, correctly, against racial quotas (``affirmative action``) on the grounds that individuals ought to be allowed to sort themselves out by inclination and ability; it is inconsistent for them to argue that the military ought to be ``representative.``

Draftees would constitute only a minority of the total manpower of the armed forces. Because blacks and others re-enlist in substantially greater proportions than whites, the goal of ``representativeness`` would require either that re-enlistment be proscribed--an absurdity--or that the military explicitly discriminate against blacks and other careerists choosing to re-enlist. Is that really what conscription proponents want?

Above all, because conscription shifts part of the cost of defense from the taxpayers in general onto 18-year-old males, it is precisely conscription --and not voluntarism--that produces a disproportionate allocation of the defense burden.

Civic duty. Conscription`s supporters often delve into metaphysics by invoking incantations of ``civic duty`` and the ``noble aspects of military service.`` No doubt many soldiers are motivated by patriotism, love of freedom and a willingness to risk life and limb for the benefit of families and countrymen. This is true for both a volunteer and conscripted force, and there is little reason to believe coercion increases such values. What is noble about military service performed under threat of imprisonment?

Furthermore, why should the requirements of ``civic duty`` stop at military service? Why not use conscription to man police forces, fire stations, bomb squads, postal facilities and, for that matter, Congress? Is it the job of individuals to serve the government, or vice versa?

Foreign policy seriousness. The United States stations about 300,000 troops in Europe, spends well over $100 billion a year for Europe`s defense and risks nuclear incineration as well. If that does not demonstrate seriousness, then there are good grounds for doubt as to whether conscription would do so under any circumstances. If anything, it is time to ask whether the Europeans are sufficiently serious about their own defense, and whether the degree of U.S. commitment to Europe is consistent with its own interests. The volunteer military--properly financed, trained and equipped--is consistent with the cohesion, morale and professionalism required for military effectiveness. Neither the arguments of conscription proponents nor actual experience leads to a different conclusion.